RE: memory mapped packet capturing - bpf replacement ?
From: Ed Maste (emaste_at_sandvine.com)
Date: 06/18/04
- Previous message: Vulpes Velox: "Re: quiet ATX mid-Towers"
- Maybe in reply to: Sergey Lyubka: "memory mapped packet capturing - bpf replacement ?"
- Next in thread: Don Bowman: "RE: memory mapped packet capturing - bpf replacement ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:25:51 -0400
Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> There's no reason why the time has to be in microseconds or
> even that it must be adjusted to realtime. You also do not
> have to support low power modes during testing which means
> that just time-stamping the packets with the TSC plus a simple
> base offset to correct for variences between cpus and machines
> on the network ought to be sufficient.
Fair enough. In my case I didn't need the timestamp anyway
so just disabling it was the least-effort way to remove the
overhead.
I pointed out the timestamp issue only because it will penalize
BPF against a new method (that doesn't have them) more than one
might expect.
-ed
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Vulpes Velox: "Re: quiet ATX mid-Towers"
- Maybe in reply to: Sergey Lyubka: "memory mapped packet capturing - bpf replacement ?"
- Next in thread: Don Bowman: "RE: memory mapped packet capturing - bpf replacement ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
